Introduction: Questions for Preliminary Reflection:
How much of Mark’s Gospel do you normally consider to be "historical"?
How much of John’s Gospel do you honestly consider to be "historical"?
What does it mean for a literary work to be "historical"?
What level of "history" are you thinking of?
I) Presuppositions: Is Mark’s Gospel Historical?
Common Assumptions of the “Historical Jesus” Movements:
Mark’s Gospel is straightforward and simple, therefore (mostly) historical.
John’s Gospel is obviously and highly theological, therefore not historical.
This bias is based largely on the oft-cited opinions of Clement of Alexandria:
"Again, in the same books [the Hypotyposes], Clement gives the tradition of the earliest presbyters, as to the order of the Gospels, in the following manner: 'The Gospels containing the genealogies, he says, were written first [i.e. Matthew and Luke]. The Gospel according to MARK had this occasion. As Peter had preached the Word publicly at Rome, and declared the Gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark, who had followed him for a long time and remembered his sayings, should write them out. And having composed the Gospel he gave it to those who had requested it. When Peter learned of this, he neither directly forbade nor encouraged it. But, last of all, JOHN, perceiving that the external facts had been made plain in the Gospel, being urged by his friends, and inspired by the Spirit, composed a spiritual Gospel.' This is the account of Clement." (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 6.14.5-7).
This bias often also forgets to account for the different historical levels involved in reading a New Testament text:
Stage 1: Jesus' own actions & teachings; Stage 2: Oral Tradition passed on by the Apostles; Stage 3: Written Sources and Texts composed by various leaders
See my NT Canon page for further stages in the Formation and Transmission of the Bible
See also the Pontifical Biblical Commission (1964), Instruction concerning the Historical Truth of the Gospels, esp. par. VI-IX
Other Patristic Evidence:
Papias, bishop of Hierapolis: “Mark, having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately, though not indeed in order, whatsoever he remembered of the things done or said by Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor followed him, but afterward, as I said, he followed Peter, who adapted his teaching to the needs of his hearers, but with no intention of giving a connected account of the Lord’s discourses…” (cited in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 3.39.14-17)
Selectors- from among the many things Jesus said and did, they chose which stories they wanted to include and which to omit.
John 20:30-31 - "Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book..."
John 21:24-25 - "... there are also many other things that Jesus did; if every one of them were written down, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written."
Luke 1:1-4 - "Since many have undertaken to set down an orderly account of the events that have been fulfilled among us..."
Shapers- they adapted and edited the individual stories from their sources, so as to emphasize the themes they wanted to stress.
Matthew (and Luke) sometimes strongly condense stories that are much longer in Mark (cf. Mark 5:1-20 and Matt 8:28-34; or Mark 5:21-43 and Matt 9:18-26)
Luke (and Matthew) sometimes correct details that are inaccurate in Mark and/or supplement related materials (cf. Mark 1:2-3 with Luke 3:1-6 & Matt 3:1-3)
Proclaimers- they were not objective historians, but preached the "good news" about Jesus in ways appropriate to their audiences.
More on this later; see also my NT Canon page, and PBC, Instruction concerning the Historical Truth of the Gospels, esp. par. IX.
Question for Reflection/Discussion:
How would you summarize: What is Mark’s "good news"?
What message is Mark primarily trying to convey to the reader?
III) Key Events in Mid-First Century Rome & the Roman Empire:
30's-40's? – First "Christians" come to the city of Rome (unknown when, how, who? - cf. Acts 2:10 - "visitors from Rome" in Jerusalem at Pentecost)
49 – "All Jews" (incl. Jewish Christians?) are expelled from Rome, acc. to an Edict of Emperor Claudius (cf. Acts 18:2)
54 – Claudius dies; Nero begins reigning as Emperor; Jews allowed to return to Rome
60? – Paul arrives in Rome, lives under house arrest for two years (but what happens thereafter? -
cf. Acts 28:14-31)
64 – Great Fire of Rome, which Nero blames on the Christians; persecution begins (how long? how severe? - cf. 1Peter 4:12 - "fiery ordeal")
62-67? – Paul and Peter are martyred in Rome (exact dates, locations, and circumstances unknown - cf. Apocryphal Acts)
66 – Jewish Revolt begins in Palestine; Roman army under General Vespasian soon retakes control of most of Israel (cf. Josephus, War)
68 – Emperor Nero dies; General Vespasian waits before finishing the war; Vespasian himself becomes Emperor in 69
70 – Complete destruction of the Temple and city of Jerusalem (cf. Mark 13:1-2, 14; Luke 21:5-6, 20-24)
IV) Examples where Mark is NOT Historically/Chronologically Accurate:
Hints in Mark that Jesus had visited Jerusalem before, that he was familiar with Jerusalem and its environs:
Entry into Jerusalem (Mark 11:1-6; cf. Matt 21:1-7; Luke 19:28-35)
Jesus stays overnight in Bethany (Mark 11:11-12, 19-20)
The anointing at Bethany, in the house of Simon the Leper (Mark 14:2-9; cf. Matt 26:6-13; John 12:1-8)
Preparations for the Last Supper (Mark 14:12-16; cf. Matt 26:17-19)
Specific Historical Difficulties in Mark's Gospel:
Mark 1:2 - the quotation is not actually from Isaiah, but from Malachi 3:1 (compare Matt 3:1-3 and Luke 3:3-6; the Malachi quote is later in Matt 11:10 and Luke 7:27, but there not attritued to Isaiah)
Mark 2:26 - the priest at the time of this incident was not Abiathar, but his father Ahimelech (see 1 Sam 21:2-7; the incorrect reference to "Abiathar" is omitted in both Matt 12:3-4 and Luke 6:3-4)
Mark 6:4, 22 - the Herod (Antipas) of this story (one of the sons of "King Herod," who had died in 4 BC) was not himself a "King," but only a "Tetrarch" (as corrected in Matt 14:1 and Luke 9:7)
Mark 1:1 – The beginning of the good news of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.
1:14-15 – Now after John was arrested, Jesus came to Galilee, proclaiming the good news of God, / and saying, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God has come near; repent, and believe in the good news.”
8:35 – “For those who want to save their life will lose it, and those who lose their life for my sake, and for the sake of the gospel, will save it.”
10:29 – Jesus said, “Truly I tell you, there is no one who has left house or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or fields, for my sake and for the sake of the good news,…”
13:10 – “And the good news must first be proclaimed to all nations.”
14:9 – “Truly I tell you, wherever the good news is proclaimed in the whole world, what she has done will be told in remembrance of her.”
[16:15 – And he said to them, “Go into all the world and proclaim the good news to the whole creation.”]
Euangelion is used
a total of 76 times in the NT: also in Matt 4:23; 9:35; 24:14; 26:13; Acts 15:7; 20:24; Rom 1:1; 1:9, 16; 2:16; 10:16; 11:28; 15:16, 19; 16:25; 1Cor 4:15; 9:12, 14, 18, 23; 15:1; 2Cor 2:12; 4:3-4; 8:18; 9:13; 10:14; 11:4, 7; Gal 1:6-7; 1:11; 2:2, 5, 7, 14; Eph 1:13; 3:6; 6:15, 19; Phil 1:5; 1:7, 12, 16, 27; 2:22; 4:3, 15; Col 1:5, 23; 1Thess 1:5; 2:2, 2:4, 8-9; 3:2; 2Thess 1:8; 2:14; 1Tim 1:11; 2Tim 1:8, 10; 2:8; Philem 1:13; 1Peter 4:17; Rev 14:6
Development of Christology:
Growth & struggles in understanding Jesus’ identity & significance
Messianic Secret: Why didn’t more people believe in Jesus?
Portrayal of Discipleship:
Eager & responsive at the beginning (calling of first disciples)
Resistant & uncomprehending in the middle (on the way to Jerusalem)
Fearful & silent at the end of the story (after Jesus’ death & resurrection)
VI) Conclusion:
Mark’s Gospel is less historical than you may have previously assumed.
Mark’s Gospel is more theological than you may have previously thought.
